Space Zig Forumsolonization bread

Are you getting carbon fibre mixed up with carbon nanotubes? The carbon fibre ultrarope shown on that site is being advertised for lift distances of 800 metres, with promises of maybe being able to increase that up to 1,000 metres at some point in the future. It's just not strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are the strongest material currently known to humankind, and while they should be strong enough, no-one has ever successfully made a carbon nanotube strand longer than a metre without any defects.

1 meter or rope = 250 grams
1000 meters of rope = 250 kilograms
100,000,000 meters of rope = 25 gigatonnes

Plus elevator, which should be around 12 tonnes empty, and a counterweight which should be 25 or more tonnes. But that's negligible. The point is we don't have a material strong enough that can hold its own weight given the extreme lengths it would have to extend for.

Right now the strongest rope we can make long enough is dyneema, 15 times stronger than steel and 50% stronger than aramids (kevlar etc)…. yet a space cable mass would still be 30000 tonnes. The fiber is nowhere near strong enough to handle that kind of weight.

Thanks for the interesting reading m8.

Heinleins work is always a funny source for tiggerings. On the one hand, taken in the context of his time, he was a remarkably non-sexist author. Starship troopers has female soldiers and officers serving alongside male counterparts without any fuss or special requirements needed, you find themes of sexual liberal thinking throughout his work, and he frequently shows that he thinks women are equal to men and even better suited to some (non-maternal) roles than men. He also seems to have been into incest and paedophilia which are pretty hot topics with modern feminism. On the other hand the feminists who have read his work seem to have an all consuming, screaming, hate-boner for the man. It's beautiful to behold.

Heinlein was a sexist in that he admitted that sexes were different. This is the modern definition of sexism, believing that there are ANY physical differences between men and women. Vaginas are not different from penises period, says modern feminism. Heinlein sticks to science, he knows women and men think differently, he knows we have different physical capabilities.

The women in his books have less muscles and are mentally more attuned to people-thinking rather than a systems-thinking, as exampled in Citizen of the Galaxy, Time for the Stars etc. In Starship Troopers all the troopers are male because of aggression, strength and endurance requirements - but all of the pilots are women. Because women are better at math, are smaller, can handle more g forces, require less oxygen because they have fewer muscles… all things which are true in real life. Heinlein also always kept the door cracked open for women who weren't hormonally average, and could do some things that men could, like Jack in Tunnel in the Sky. He occasionally plays with aliens, like in Star Beast, or Space Cadet with basically Asari from Mass Effect being the only species on Venus.

All of Heinlein's books are about a greater message buried in the plot. The characters don't matter, they could be dogs and cats and it wouldn't make any difference. Star Beasts is about what happens when a secret is kept too long, it tends to grow over time until it's a problem for everyone. It's also about perspective, and about growing up. Having a nigger as a US ambassador makes no difference to the plot whatsoever.

t. Heinlein #1 Fan

...

I'm a biologist moron.

Women are on average shorter, decreasing the distance between the heart and the head, and decreasing the "wasted blood" in lower extremities by simply having shorter legs. The disadvantage comes when women wear mens g suits, and are trained in the same methods (straining maneuver) there are some disadvantages, but that situation has nothing to do with the basic biology.

The parts of the brain (inferior parietal lobes) concerned with language, are also the parts of the brain that deal with geometry, algebra, calculus… also the thickness of the corpus callosum helps with visualisation of some specialized spheres of mathemathics. Women can also do multitasking better, but are worse at specializing at a single task, which helps with piloting. They also have more cones in their eyes.

If what you're saying about the female brains structural advantage in mathematics were accurate then why are maths faculties world wide not dominated by women? Please note, we're talking universities here, the home of progressive politics, so if your answer includes the phrases 'institutional', 'sexism', 'bias', 'representation' or any combination thereof you don't have an answer.

They also have weaker muscles that reduces effectiveness of anti-G straining maneuver. Overall actual testing studies didn't show statistical difference between male and female g tolerance.

One can invent dozens of made up advantages like libs do but lets go actual performance. Where are all good female pilots? "Good" means beating male pilots head to head, preferably in controlled environment for high relevance of comparison? Try to google "Where are all the female Formula 1 racing drivers?". You will get bazillion of soyboys autisticaly screeching "male privilege!" This is all you need to know about female "piloting skills".

You can add video gaming here. Perfect "feminist dream world", strength doesn't matter at alll, zero entrance barriers, possibility of anonymity. Finally woman can bring her "brain powers" to full effect without body holding her back. Where are female gamers in the top ranks of twitch games? Multitasking? Starcraft? There is like one good "female" gamer there and he is tranny lol.

Attached: still.jpg (960x540, 35.94K)

The leaf is partially right. The corpus callosum is indeed larger in women and that lends itself to better multitasking and the use of multiple parts of the brain "simultaneously". Women also have better colored vision, which is why they have a thousand fruity names for what men see as identical colors. The rest is bullshit though.

Because being a math academic, being a fighter pilot, or a "formula 1 race car driver" really any career requires devoting a significant portion of your life to mastering that skill. Understand that women need to be married and start a family by 20 so their kid will be raised by 40, their biological clock demands it. A man can get married at 30 or 40, giving him 10-20 extra years of doing whatever he wants, focusing on career, or wasting time gaming. So even though they're biologically superior in those specific areas, a man who can devote himself more fully for 10-20 years in that area is going to be better no matter what.

It's the same reason the stupid wage gap myth exists. Compare unmarried, never pregnant women, and their careers are often as successful as men, or even more so.